JUDGMENT I. P. Mukherji J.-The concerned assessment year is 2011-12. There is demand from Income-tax Department upon assessee-writ petitioner for sum of Rs. 12,11,86,487. Against assessment order in question, assessee's appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is pending. By order dated July 17, 2014, passed under section 220(6) of Income-tax Act, 1961, assessee was required to pay 50 per cent. of total demand in following manner: Rs. 2.10 crores, i.e., 10 per cent. of above demand immediately and balance 40 per cent., i.e., Rs.8.40 crores in six monthly instalments of Rs. 1.40 crores each, starting from end of July, 2014. Although in said order assessee has been asked to pay 50 per cent. of demand, mere look at demand would show that assessee was asked to deposit 100 per cent. of demand. Being aggrieved assessee approached Commissioner of Incometax, Kolkata-I. However, by his decision dated September 4, 2014, request of assessee for staying demand was rejected. further approach has been made before Principal Commissioner of Income-tax regarding which there is no response till date. On September 10, 2014, order dated July 17, 2014, was "annulled". Mr. J. P. Khaitan, learned senior advocate for petitioner, tries to unfold prima facie case of assessee to show that demand ex facie is unjust. To substantial extent he has been able to establish such prima facie case. On reading of paragraph 10 of assessment order it shows that sum of Rs. 26,35,09,093 has been added to income of assessee. ground on which this income has been added is that quantity of pure gold as declared was mixed with alloy bringing down proportion of pure gold in product from 24 carats to 22 carats. excess quantity than what was declared was produced and sold in market for "added back" amount. This, according to Mr. Khaitan, and I accept Mr. Khaitan's contention, is not quite correct. According to summary of stock which is annexed to writ petition at page 177 thereof and is also part of writ petitioner's audited accounts, quantity of gold of 24 carats which was said to have been converted into 22 carats upon addition of alloy was in fact of only 22 carats. It is nobody's case that that particular quantity of gold was further converted into gold of lesser carat value. addition of Rs. 26,35,09,093 made on said basis is prima facie erroneous. Therefore, in my opinion, writ petitioner has substantial case to be tried before Commissioner (Appeals). After filing of petitioner's application before Principal Commissioner of Income-tax banks accounts including cash credit accounts of writ petitioner have been attached by income tax authorities. In my opinion, petitioner should be relieved of some of rigours of this attachment. I discharge attachment with regard to cash credit account of petitioner with Allahabad Bank, Bowbazar Branch. In this, I am supported by decision of Madras High Court in K. M. Adam v. ITO reported in [1958] 33 ITR 26 (Mad) which opines that loan fund cannot said to be debt of bank to customer nor could it be said to be money on account of customer. Hence, it cannot be attached. I direct Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to dispose of appeal by December 31, 2014. Other bank accounts of writ petitioner with Union Bank of India, Sealdah Branch and Bank of India, Bowbazar Branch, will continue to remain attached with rider that Department will not be able to appropriate any sum therefrom till disposal of appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). continuance of attachment and operation of bank accounts will abide by order to be passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Nothing remains of this application. It is disposed of by this order. Allegations contained in writ petition are deemed not to be admitted. Allegations contained in writ petition are deemed not to be admitted. Certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. *** P. C. Chandra and Sons (India) P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax